Cencorship

Censorship Censors Every American's Freedoms.

One of the many freedoms that Americans seem to take for granted is the liberty to say what we like. This freedom was given to us in the First Amendment. This part of the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or the press; or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (Boyer, Purity in Print, 98)." People that create, perform or distribute works of art add to the exchange of ideas and opinions, which is necessary for a democratic society. There are many avenues in which this exchange occurs. These include, but are not limited to Television, Theater, Radio, Newspapers and Journals, the internet, public demonstrations and forums, and Libraries and Museums. Every time our technology advances and some new form of entertainment begins to develop or change, more people would like to control what goes on by some form of censorship. Though not all programming, or opinions or ideas are suitable for all viewers or spectators, as adults living in a free country, we have the right to choose what we want to watch or hear and what we don't.

Censorship is "the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is condemned as subversive of the common good" (Garry, An American Paradox, 187) Any time a public exchange is censored before the public is able to view it, we are being robbed of our right to choose what we wish to see or hear; another person has chosen for us. They have taken away our freedom of Speech. Most of the controversy over television, radio, literal or computer programming is focused around audiences' appetite for violence. As time goes by, the amount of violence in these programs seems to escalate. This is why Attorney General Janet Reno and others have started a crusade against these public forms of violence. They feel that the level of violence in programming these days somehow desensitizes people, especially impressionable young people, to real life violence. The First Amendment was written to establish freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and trial and prevent the prohibition of these, yet, over the last two centuries, congress has attempted to prohibit all of the above on many occasions. The internet is one medium in which there is an ongoing battle for censorship. For Example, Janet Reno tried to pass government mandated decency, by fighting a war against the internet. In 1996, Reno and Clinton supported the Communications Decency Act. The Act was a blanket form of censorship, not just on the Internet, but in public libraries and private bookstores, as well. When challenged in court, Reno used a round-about defense argument. She argued, to protect First Amendment freedoms, the Internet must be censored. She further argued, that without government removing indecent terms and pictures through mandatory Internet filters, many people (especially children) would not use the Internet (Garry, 157). Thus, these people would be denied their First Amendment rights to access the new medium. "Burn the village in order to save it." The Act was declared unconstitutional with a judge calling it ironic to censor the Internet, "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed" (Garry 159) The victory over the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was won by arguing that the Internet is not broadcast media because the individual must act deliberately to retrieve particular information. There is a problem with the notion that the First Amendment, rather than offering full protection to all forms of free speech and a free press, must be petitioned on an individual basis. It is dangerous to take the First Amendment, which is supposed to protect all free speech, and continue to allow it to only protect free speech in certain media. Free speech is especially important as an overall means of protection, so that it is not subject to political whims or the changing fads of public opinion. Sometimes the First Amendment may protect content that you do not support, but that is why there is a power button on your TV, an on/off switch on your radio and Surf Watch for your computer. Nobody is forcing you to watch or listen to any particular view, program, or opinion, and that is precisely the point of the First Amendment.

When the constitutional framers drafted the Bill of Rights protecting freedom of speech, only two forms of speech existed: written and verbal. Written speech appeared in the small-scale book and newspaper publishing industries and in written correspondence between individuals. Verbal speech was also conducted on a fairly small-scale basis. With no audio technologies available, all verbal speech took place on the personal level. Speech thus required a willing and committed listener. Therefore, social communication was an easily confined and controlled function, especially since there were so few outlets and forums for it. Today, however, social communication is neither so easily controlled nor so personal. It is no longer so easily confined to any particular audience. As electronic and telecommunication technologies continually increase, the presence and influence of free speech is overwhelming. "For people in the entertainment industry in this country, we applaud your creativity and your worldwide success, and we support your freedom of expression. But you do have a responsibility to assess the impact of your work and to understand the damage that comes from the incessant, repetitive mindless violence and irresponsible conduct that permeates our media all the time, " (Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address January 24, 1995.) Bill Clinton points out a popular cultural censorship dilemma between free expression and social responsibility. In 2003, Congress made the following findings: That television influences children's perception of the values and behavior that are common and acceptable in society; that television station operators should follow practices in connection with video programming that take into consideration its omnipresent nature. The average American child is exposed to 25 hours of television each week and some children are exposed to as much as 11 hours of television a day. Studies have shown that children exposed to violent video programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children not so exposed, and that children exposed to violent video programming are prone to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior. Studies indicate that children are affected by the pervasiveness and casual treatment of sexual material on television,